This is my personal blog. I was Branch Secretary of Lambeth UNISON from 1992 to 2017 and a member of the National Executive Council (NEC) of UNISON, the public service union (www.unison.org.uk) from 2003 to 2017.
I am Chair of Brighton Pavilion Constituency Labour Party and of the Sussex Labour Representation Committee (LRC).
Neither the Labour Party nor UNISON is responsible for the contents of this personal blog. (Nor is my employer!)

Support socialism - Join Labour

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

‎I have been asked, by a senior paid official of our trade union, to desist from circulating UNISON branches encouraging rejection of the pay proposals in local government.

Having given respectful consideration to this request, I cannot comply.

My threadbare justification for my action is that the proposals are a WORSE deal than the offer against which we took strike action in the current year - and tie our hands in the following year.

I won't name the official concerned as that would not be fair. Paid officials are no more than our "civil servants" who may not express their own opinions (as regular readers Sid and Doris Not-that-Gullible could perhaps attest).

Since I am familiar with UNISON Rules, I shall disregard all discouragement and continue to behave as one who believes that our trade union is lay led and democratic.

‎UNISON exists to improve the lives of our members. We cannot seriously promote a set of pay proposals which are transparently worse than those against which we encouraged members to take strike action. To do so would bring UNISON into disrepute.

Those who choose to associate themselves with such promotion deservedly sacrifice any respect which anyone might have for them.

I suggest that all UNISON officials, from the General Secretary down, desist from promoting the pay proposals and desist from trying to discourage or intimidate organised opposition.

‎I have been asked, by a senior paid official of our trade union, to desist from circulating UNISON branches encouraging rejection of the pay proposals in local government.

Having given respectful consideration to this request, I cannot comply.

My threadbare justification for my action is that the proposals are a WORSE deal than the offer against which we took strike action in the current year - and tie our hands in the following year.

I won't name the official concerned as that would not be fair. Paid officials are no more than our "civil servants" who may not express their own opinions (as regular readers Sid and Doris Not-that-Gullible could perhaps attest).

Since I am familiar with UNISON Rules, I shall disregard all discouragement and continue to behave as one who believes that our trade union is lay led and democratic.

‎UNISON exists to improve the lives of our members. We cannot seriously promote a set of pay proposals which are transparently worse than those against which we encouraged members to take strike action. To do so would bring UNISON into disrepute.

Those who choose to associate themselves with such promotion deservedly sacrifice any respect which anyone might have for them.

I suggest that all UNISON officials, from the General Secretary down, desist from promoting the pay proposals and desist from trying to discourage or intimidate organised opposition.

Friday, October 24, 2014

Yesterday afternoon a group‎ of striking UNITE members from St Mungos brought themselves, a giant inflatable rat and a very effective sound system to the steps of Brixton Town Hall.

They are in dispute with a hostile management ‎who are refusing to bargain on pay, whilst slashing conditions for new starters and rewarding those at the top of the organisation.

They came to Lambeth to highlight their case because Lambeth is one‎ of the local authorities which commissions work from their organisation. It is quite right that workers assert the moral and political responsibility of those who hold the purse strings. UNISON's approach to lobbying the owners of Care UK is another such case in point.

The Government however, are much less keen that trade unions should develop (or even retain the ability lawfully to use) any useful tactics whatsoever to defend workers' interests.

In the aftermath of Labour's self-inflicted Falkirk fiasco, the Tories seized the chance to forge further shackles for our movement, commissioning‎ Bruce Carr QC to investigate allegations of "extreme tactics" in industrial disputes - and to recommend changes to the law.

For once though our opponents over reached themselves and, in the final nail in the coffin of the hopes of the Tory right's "Trade Union Reform Campaign" the final Carr report concludes - nothing at all.

Poor Mr Carr has to accept he couldn't gather enough evidence to draw any conclusions and ‎says nothing about possible legal change. A giant inflatable rat - it seems - is not quite the Sheffield Outrages after all (if you don't know about the Sheffield Outrages I'm not saying more here now because I've got into quite enough trouble in the past for expressing views on strikebreaking).

‎It would be wrong to think that the Tories (and UKIP's purple Poujadistes) wouldn't further limit our movement if they could - but for now, at least it simply remains as bad as it already was.

Yesterday afternoon a group‎ of striking UNITE members from St Mungos brought themselves, a giant inflatable rat and a very effective sound system to the steps of Brixton Town Hall.

They are in dispute with a hostile management ‎who are refusing to bargain on pay, whilst slashing conditions for new starters and rewarding those at the top of the organisation.

They came to Lambeth to highlight their case because Lambeth is one‎ of the local authorities which commissions work from their organisation. It is quite right that workers assert the moral and political responsibility of those who hold the purse strings. UNISON's approach to lobbying the owners of Care UK is another such case in point.

The Government however, are much less keen that trade unions should develop (or even retain the ability lawfully to use) any useful tactics whatsoever to defend workers' interests.

In the aftermath of Labour's self-inflicted Falkirk fiasco, the Tories seized the chance to forge further shackles for our movement, commissioning‎ Bruce Carr QC to investigate allegations of "extreme tactics" in industrial disputes - and to recommend changes to the law.

For once though our opponents over reached themselves and, in the final nail in the coffin of the hopes of the Tory right's "Trade Union Reform Campaign" the final Carr report concludes - nothing at all.

Poor Mr Carr has to accept he couldn't gather enough evidence to draw any conclusions and ‎says nothing about possible legal change. A giant inflatable rat - it seems - is not quite the Sheffield Outrages after all (if you don't know about the Sheffield Outrages I'm not saying more here now because I've got into quite enough trouble in the past for expressing views on strikebreaking).

‎It would be wrong to think that the Tories (and UKIP's purple Poujadistes) wouldn't further limit our movement if they could - but for now, at least it simply remains as bad as it already was.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

At yesterday's (inquorate) meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Council, a presentation was given about the‎ importance of organising the fragmented public service workforce.

This useful and informative presentation drew from the clear policy adopted at National Delegate Conference and referred to the statement issued by our President and General Secretary affirming the priority to be attached to organising the 15% of our members in the private sector (a proportion which will certainly continue to grow as long as UNISON Labour Link remains such a weak and ineffective part of our organisation).

Jobs which, a generation ago, might have been carried out by public sector local government or health workers are increasingly now performed by private sector workers, often on low pay or even zero hours contracts. These workers, many of whose employers are actively hostile to trade unions often have no tradition or experience of organisation. This is a major challenge to UNISON.

Are we fit to meet this challenge?

Absolutely not.

Today I was hoping, as a Branch Secretary, to meet with a couple of private sector shop stewards, from two different branches, in two different Regions of UNISON, together with a colleague at the UNISON Centre.

And then I made the mistake of contacting our Regional office to see if they could come along.

Sometimes you learn the true priorities of our trade union the hard way.

It is not our first priority to organise private sector workers who desperately need organising.

That is not as important as turf war between sections of our ossified bureaucracy.

Activists can't meet national officials without the presence of Regional officials.

‎Shop stewards in one branch must not organise members in another branch.

Above all we must guard against the enthusiasm of motivated lay activists who will willingly give their own time up to build a trade union in difficult circumstances.

I sometimes think our large trade unions are too large. They are large enough to become an arena for battles between egos and careers within the machine.

Large enough too not to hear the cry of small and medium sized groups of trade unionists who need an energetic response to difficult employers.

The high level working group, consisting of the Presidential team and various others of UNISON's "great and good" (which has been established to oversee organising the fragmented workforce) means nothing on a day like today.

What is the point of the mighty UNISON Centre on the Euston Road (with all its long-term empty space) when UNISON shop stewards wanting to implement the most important priority from our Conference have to meet in a pub because officialdom isn't ready to help them yet?

At yesterday's (inquorate) meeting of the UNISON Greater London Regional Council, a presentation was given about the‎ importance of organising the fragmented public service workforce.

This useful and informative presentation drew from the clear policy adopted at National Delegate Conference and referred to the statement issued by our President and General Secretary affirming the priority to be attached to organising the 15% of our members in the private sector (a proportion which will certainly continue to grow as long as UNISON Labour Link remains such a weak and ineffective part of our organisation).

Jobs which, a generation ago, might have been carried out by public sector local government or health workers are increasingly now performed by private sector workers, often on low pay or even zero hours contracts. These workers, many of whose employers are actively hostile to trade unions often have no tradition or experience of organisation. This is a major challenge to UNISON.

Are we fit to meet this challenge?

Absolutely not.

Today I was hoping, as a Branch Secretary, to meet with a couple of private sector shop stewards, from two different branches, in two different Regions of UNISON, together with a colleague at the UNISON Centre.

And then I made the mistake of contacting our Regional office to see if they could come along.

Sometimes you learn the true priorities of our trade union the hard way.

It is not our first priority to organise private sector workers who desperately need organising.

That is not as important as turf war between sections of our ossified bureaucracy.

Activists can't meet national officials without the presence of Regional officials.

‎Shop stewards in one branch must not organise members in another branch.

Above all we must guard against the enthusiasm of motivated lay activists who will willingly give their own time up to build a trade union in difficult circumstances.

I sometimes think our large trade unions are too large. They are large enough to become an arena for battles between egos and careers within the machine.

Large enough too not to hear the cry of small and medium sized groups of trade unionists who need an energetic response to difficult employers.

The high level working group, consisting of the Presidential team and various others of UNISON's "great and good" (which has been established to oversee organising the fragmented workforce) means nothing on a day like today.

What is the point of the mighty UNISON Centre on the Euston Road (with all its long-term empty space) when UNISON shop stewards wanting to implement the most important priority from our Conference have to meet in a pub because officialdom isn't ready to help them yet?

The link above is to the post below, in connection with which I can now report the happy news that workers between spine points 21 and 25 on the Inner London Pay spine no longer face pay proposals which would leave them even worse off than the previous 1% offer by April next year.

Oh no!

Today we learned that the London employers have agreed that the correct interpretation - in Inner London - of the national pay proposals means additional unconsolidated lump sum payments - to be paid in April 2015.

These range from £2 before tax at spine point 21 up to £13 before tax at spine point 25.

"The best that can be achieved by negotiation" just gets better and better.

The link above is to the post below, in connection with which I can now report the happy news that workers between spine points 21 and 25 on the Inner London Pay spine no longer face pay proposals which would leave them even worse off than the previous 1% offer by April next year.

Oh no!

Today we learned that the London employers have agreed that the correct interpretation - in Inner London - of the national pay proposals means additional unconsolidated lump sum payments - to be paid in April 2015.

These range from £2 before tax at spine point 21 up to £13 before tax at spine point 25.

"The best that can be achieved by negotiation" just gets better and better.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

‎At last we have the details, for Inner London, of the pay proposals, the existence of which justified the decision, taken 13 days ago, to suspend the strike action on 14 October.

And they are worse even than the national proposals.

The December "lump sum" payments are paid from the lower starting point (Spine point 3) and so - for example - the minimum £100 payment applies at spine points 9 and above rather than from spine point 11.

Furthermore, workers on spine points 21 to 25 inclusive on the Inner London pay spine (for whom the £100 added to the 2.2% increase from 1 January falls short of what they could have expected from a 1% increase in year) will not receive the (very) modest additional lump sum in April 2015 which is intended to remedy that defect for staff on higher pay rates.

These are small points in terms of finance, but a cruel insult to add to the injury of utterly inadequate national proposals.

Little wonder then that the majority of Inner London borough UNISON branches have already decided to recommend rejection of the proposals.

‎At last we have the details, for Inner London, of the pay proposals, the existence of which justified the decision, taken 13 days ago, to suspend the strike action on 14 October.

And they are worse even than the national proposals.

The December "lump sum" payments are paid from the lower starting point (Spine point 3) and so - for example - the minimum £100 payment applies at spine points 9 and above rather than from spine point 11.

Furthermore, workers on spine points 21 to 25 inclusive on the Inner London pay spine (for whom the £100 added to the 2.2% increase from 1 January falls short of what they could have expected from a 1% increase in year) will not receive the (very) modest additional lump sum in April 2015 which is intended to remedy that defect for staff on higher pay rates.

These are small points in terms of finance, but a cruel insult to add to the injury of utterly inadequate national proposals.

Little wonder then that the majority of Inner London borough UNISON branches have already decided to recommend rejection of the proposals.

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

‎When I blogged a few days ago about having at last had sight of a ballot paper in order to consult members on the disgraceful proposals on local government pay I was almost guilty of premature balloting.

Honestly! That never happens to me!

As it turns out, in respect of a process of consultation which - according to UNISON's website commenced five days ago - and in respect of which we must have issued ballot papers to our members so that they are back with us in three weeks - we STILL don't have detailed proposals or a ballot paper (see below).

Suggestions by regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris conspiracy-theorist) that the lack of prompt attention to the London pay spines was calculated to reduce the consultation response in one of the two UNISON Regions solidly opposed to the squalid capitulation being offered to us are‎ - of course - wide of the mark.

‎It is, however, true that local government workers in London (in all three unions) are still in the dark about the meaning of the "proposals" the existence of which provided the threadbare justification for calling off last week's strike.

I am very sorry to report that we have had problems with regard to the interpretation of the NJC pay proposals when applied to London. We met with the employers today and put forward some proposals designed to resolve these matters. They have gone away to consider them and will be back with their response as soon as possible, but in any event before the end of the week.

I am very sorry that this is causing a further delay to the consultation in London, which I know is frustrating. However it is a complex offer and we need to make sure we have an accurate proposal on which to ballot our members.

‎When I blogged a few days ago about having at last had sight of a ballot paper in order to consult members on the disgraceful proposals on local government pay I was almost guilty of premature balloting.

Honestly! That never happens to me!

As it turns out, in respect of a process of consultation which - according to UNISON's website commenced five days ago - and in respect of which we must have issued ballot papers to our members so that they are back with us in three weeks - we STILL don't have detailed proposals or a ballot paper (see below).

Suggestions by regular readers of this blog (Sid and Doris conspiracy-theorist) that the lack of prompt attention to the London pay spines was calculated to reduce the consultation response in one of the two UNISON Regions solidly opposed to the squalid capitulation being offered to us are‎ - of course - wide of the mark.

‎It is, however, true that local government workers in London (in all three unions) are still in the dark about the meaning of the "proposals" the existence of which provided the threadbare justification for calling off last week's strike.

I am very sorry to report that we have had problems with regard to the interpretation of the NJC pay proposals when applied to London. We met with the employers today and put forward some proposals designed to resolve these matters. They have gone away to consider them and will be back with their response as soon as possible, but in any event before the end of the week.

I am very sorry that this is causing a further delay to the consultation in London, which I know is frustrating. However it is a complex offer and we need to make sure we have an accurate proposal on which to ballot our members.

It's not just UNISON activists and branches who are seeing through the shamefully inadequate pay proposals which have emerged from the national pay "negotiations".

The link above is to a temporary blog from Brighton's GMB Branch (a flagship branch for their trade union with a reputation for robust defence of members' interests which has spread far beyond Sussex).

Brighton GMB set out, clearly and coherently, why the pay proposals should be rejected. (I should add that I am quite certain that my friends and comrades in the local UNISON branch agree with them!)

It's not just UNISON activists and branches who are seeing through the shamefully inadequate pay proposals which have emerged from the national pay "negotiations".

The link above is to a temporary blog from Brighton's GMB Branch (a flagship branch for their trade union with a reputation for robust defence of members' interests which has spread far beyond Sussex).

Brighton GMB set out, clearly and coherently, why the pay proposals should be rejected. (I should add that I am quite certain that my friends and comrades in the local UNISON branch agree with them!)

Thursday, October 16, 2014

‎So, now I do have the wording of the ballot paper to issue to our members in order to consult them about the disgraceful pay proposals.

I don't have the spreadsheet which shows how the proposals impact upon individual members - but that doesn't matter too much to me as an Inner London Branch Secretary as it appears that no one has yet bothered to work that out for us.

I note that the email suggests that I should only send members the national leaflet which I have not yet been sent.

I think that - like any Branch Secretary worth his (or her) salt I shall ignore this risible direction.

The sad excuses for trade unionists who failed to recommend rejection of this appalling set of proposals have already breached our Rules.

Anyone who says that activists should not tell the truth to members about how utterly unacceptable these proposals are will be breaching our Rules ‎too.

I am proud to be a member of UNISON and to stand alongside the many good activists who have done so much for our members over so many years.

I am ashamed to be part of any organisation which would tolerate within its ranks those who would try to "sell" to our members the disgraceful pay proposals.

I think that all those implicated in this scandal - from the General Secretary down - should best resign now.

‎So, now I do have the wording of the ballot paper to issue to our members in order to consult them about the disgraceful pay proposals.

I don't have the spreadsheet which shows how the proposals impact upon individual members - but that doesn't matter too much to me as an Inner London Branch Secretary as it appears that no one has yet bothered to work that out for us.

I note that the email suggests that I should only send members the national leaflet which I have not yet been sent.

I think that - like any Branch Secretary worth his (or her) salt I shall ignore this risible direction.

The sad excuses for trade unionists who failed to recommend rejection of this appalling set of proposals have already breached our Rules.

Anyone who says that activists should not tell the truth to members about how utterly unacceptable these proposals are will be breaching our Rules ‎too.

I am proud to be a member of UNISON and to stand alongside the many good activists who have done so much for our members over so many years.

I am ashamed to be part of any organisation which would tolerate within its ranks those who would try to "sell" to our members the disgraceful pay proposals.

I think that all those implicated in this scandal - from the General Secretary down - should best resign now.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

As flagged up here earlier, a circular (NJC Bulletin Issue No. 52) has come out to UNISON branches. Unfortunately it has caused some combustion in the britches.

The circular says;

“Very tough discussions took place during September. These resulted in the LGA coming forward with the initial proposals which were circulated to branches in NJC Pay Bulletin 48. UNISON made it clear that these were not acceptable at a meeting with the employers on 2 October and the LGA then came back with the revised proposals which were circulated to you on 10 October. These include an additional lump sum for those on scale point 26 and above to be paid on 1 April 2015. This is to ensure that no-one would receive less than the equivalent of 1% in cash value in 2014 - when the 2.2% increase in January 2015 and the non-consolidated lump sum are combined.”

The truth is;

Members on the national pay spine at SCP26 and above will be worse off as at 31 March, as the additional lump sum won’t be paid until April 2015 (and of course it is worse to receive money later rather than sooner).

The circular says;

“The Committee [NJC Committee on 25 September] also asked the negotiators to return to the LGA and say that the proposals were not acceptable and seek further negotiations. There was also concern that the proposals didn’t amount to a final offer and could not be guaranteed until the LGA had consulted councils. This is because the LGA has its own consultation procedures and had only consulted councils on the initial March offer. A further date for an NJC Committee meeting was set for 9 October to consider any developments. The negotiators did as requested by the NJC Committee and revised proposals were secured.”

·That the lump sum amounted to less than the back pay on 1% (it still does in 2014/15);

·That the overall impact of the 2.2% on basic pay does not begin to compensate our members for the loss of earnings and the hardship they face (it still doesn’t), and;

·The proposals are not a formal offer which can be consulted on under UNISON’s pay consultation procedures (they still aren’t).

The circular says;

“Meanwhile GMB and Unite both took decisions to suspend the strike action on 14 October and consult members over the initial proposals, which they circulated to their members. Although we had not suspended the strike action UNISON was then placed in a position where we had to circulate the proposals too, as we did not want members to find out about them from other unions.”

“Finally, the Committee [NJC Committee on 9 October] considered what its recommendation to members should be in the consultation. There was a unanimous view that the proposals could not be recommended and that we should consult our members on the following basis:

‘The UNISON NJC Committee’s view is that the employers’ pay proposals for 2014/16 fall far below the aspirations in our 2014/15 pay claim and what members deserve.However, the Committee believes it is the best achievable by negotiation and that only sustained all out strike action could achieve an improved pay offer.’”

The truth is;

The General Secretary advised the Committee of correspondence received from the employers which is in the public domain (courtesy of our Manchester branch) and this was influential in their decision.

Incidentally, we already knew that sustained all out strike action was necessary to secure a decent pay rise and had voted for, and taken, national industrial action on that basis.

I shall enquire as to when the next meeting of the National Health and Safety Committee is so that we can consider how to deal with trouser-related conflagration at the UNISON Centre.

The best way to extinguish this fire will doubtless be to reject the rubbish pay proposals.

As flagged
up here earlier, a circular (NJC Bulletin Issue No. 52) has come out to UNISON
branches. Unfortunately it has caused some combustion in the britches.

The circular says;

“Very tough discussions took place
during September. These resulted in the LGA coming forward with the initial
proposals which were circulated to branches in NJC Pay Bulletin 48. UNISON made
it clear that these were not acceptable at a meeting with the employers on 2
October and the LGA then came back with the revised proposals which were
circulated to you on 10 October. These
include an additional lump sum for those on scale point 26 and above to be paid
on 1 April 2015. This is to ensure that no-one would receive less than the
equivalent of 1% in cash value in 2014 - when the 2.2% increase in January 2015
and the non-consolidated lump sum are combined.”

The truth is;

Members on
the national pay spine at SCP26 and above will be worse off as at 31 March, as
the additional lump sum won’t be paid until April 2015 (and of course it is
worse to receive money later rather than sooner).

The circular says;

“The Committee [NJC Committee on 25 September] also asked the negotiators to return to the
LGA and say that the proposals were not acceptable and seek further
negotiations. There was also concern that the proposals didn’t amount to a
final offer and could not be guaranteed until the LGA had consulted councils.
This is because the LGA has its own consultation procedures and had only
consulted councils on the initial March offer. A further date for an NJC
Committee meeting was set for 9 October to consider any developments. The
negotiators did as requested by the NJC Committee and revised proposals were
secured.”

·That
the lump sum amounted to less than the back pay on 1% (it still does in 2014/15);

·That
the overall impact of the 2.2% on basic pay does not begin to compensate our
members for the loss of earnings and the hardship they face (it
still doesn’t), and;

·The
proposals are not a formal offer which can be consulted on under UNISON’s pay
consultation procedures (they still aren’t).

The circular says;

“Meanwhile GMB and Unite both took
decisions to suspend the strike action on 14 October and consult members over
the initial proposals, which they circulated to their members. Although we had
not suspended the strike action UNISON was then placed in a position where we
had to circulate the proposals too, as we did not want members to find out
about them from other unions.”

“Finally, the Committee [NJC Committee on 9 October] considered what its recommendation to
members should be in the consultation. There was a unanimous view that the
proposals could not be recommended and that we should consult our members on
the following basis:

‘The UNISON NJC Committee’s view is
that the employers’ pay proposals for 2014/16 fall far below the aspirations in
our 2014/15 pay claim and what members deserve.However, the Committee believes it is the best achievable by negotiation
and that only sustained all out strike action could achieve an improved pay
offer.’”

The truth is;

The General
Secretary advised the Committee of correspondence received from the employers
which is in the public domain (courtesy
of our Manchester branch) and this was influential in their decision.

Incidentally,
we already knew that sustained all out strike action was necessary to secure a
decent pay rise and had voted for, and
taken, national industrial action on that basis.

I shall
enquire as to when the next meeting of the National Health and Safety Committee
is so that we can consider how to deal with trouser-related conflagration at
the UNISON Centre.

The best way to extinguish this fire will doubtless be to reject the rubbish pay proposals.